Showing posts with label LGBT. Show all posts
Showing posts with label LGBT. Show all posts
Tuesday, 10 September 2013
Monday, 1 July 2013
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court issued two decisions in regards to LGBT Rights. One of them was in regards to California's Proposition 8.
In 2008, California passed a law allowing for same-sex marriages to be preformed within the state. At this time, only Massachusetts was the other state where same-sex marriages were preformed. However, those against the idea were able to place a ballot initiative that would change the California State Constitution to define marriage as one man and one woman. As highlighted in the documentary 8: The Mormon Proposition, the Yes on 8 campaign received A LOT of support from the Mormon Church based in Salt Lake City, UT.
Election Night 2008 is remembered for two things....
First:
"Barack Obama is projected to be the next President of The United States of America."
- Keith Olbermann, 10 PM (CT) 4 November 2008
Yes, it's true. Keith Olbermann worked for MSNBC. And Current TV. And Fox Sports. And ESPN. And CBS 2 in Los Angeles. And CNN.
Well, here is hoping his upcoming gig with TBS works out.
Second:
What followed was about 4 years of litigation before the Supreme Court heard oral arguments and released its decision.
The 5-4 decision in Hollingsworth v. Perry (2013) ruled that the petitioners did not have standing in the case. The state of California refused to take part in the litigation, but the proponents of Prop 8 were willing to take the case.
If you wish to read the opinionyou are more than welcome to as it contains a lot of references to Article III and the question of standing.
But SCOTUSBlog has the plain English explanation from their live blogging event (scroll down to 10:40):
Here's a Plain English take on Hollingsworth v. Perry, the challenge to the constitutionality of California's Proposition 8, which bans same-sex marriage: After the two same-sex couples filed their challenge to Proposition 8 in federal court in California, the California government officials who would normally have defended the law in court, declined to do so. So the proponents of Proposition 8 stepped in to defend the law, and the California Supreme Court (in response to a request by the lower court) ruled that they could do so under state law. But today the Supreme Court held that the proponents do not have the legal right to defend the law in court. As a result, it held, the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the intermediate appellate court, has no legal force, and it sent the case back to that court with instructions for it to dismiss the case.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion and was joined by Justices Scalia, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote a dissenting opinion and was joined by Justices Alito, Thomas, and Sotomayor.
Now that is a weird 5-4 line up.... but so was last year's ObamaCare decision where Chief Justice Roberts joined with the court's 4 liberal leaning members.
In other words, it was a narrow ruling that only impacted California. While I would have preferred that the court issued a wide ruling declaring that such bans of same-sex marriages are unconstitutional, I expected that the court would go with a narrow ruling based on what I have read and heard. The court kicked it back down to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit with instructions to dismiss the case.
On Friday, the Ninth Circuit issued this one sentence judgment:
"The stay in the above matter is dissolved effective immediately."
And the two couples involved in the Prop 8 litigation were seen on television getting married.
And here is the first live wedding on The Rachel Maddow Show
But alas, the opposition has asked the Supreme Court to intervene and filed an emergency stay to halt these marriages. Good news is that Justice Anthony Kennedy told them to take a hike.
To the opposition: You lost. Get over it.
Congrats to the all the gay couples in California. You've earned it.
The big LGBT Rights cases announced on Wednesday challenged the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).
In 1996, the Republican controlled Congress passed a bill that President Bill Clinton, a Democrat, signed. Clinton, who in 1992 stated he would be the first President to champion gay rights, went back on that promise with "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and then in 1996 facing re-election signed DOMA. Representative John Lewis and many House members fiercely stated their opposition to the bill. The law defined marriage for the purpose of federal benefits as one man and one woman. The law denied 1,138 benefits to federal employees involved in same-sex marriages.
Edie Windsor and Thea Spyer were together for 46 years. In 2007 the couple married in Canada under their equal marriage laws passed which were passed in 2005. Coincidently enough, that was the same year of the NHL's season long lockout that resulted in the Stanley Cup Final not being played.
If you get a chance watch Edie and Thea: A Very Long Engagement. It's about an hour long. It's very funny and sweet about how these two were together for so long and how Edie takes care of her wife Thea.
Thea Spyer passed away in 2009. As executor of Thea's estate, the IRS compelled Edie to pay over $350,000 in back taxes. The state of New York recognized their relationship as at the time the Empire State recognized same-sex couples who were married in other places.
In November 2010, Edith "Edie" Windsor with assistance from the ACLU sued the United States over that this policy discriminated her. In March 2013, oral arguments were heard in the case of United States v. Windsor (2013).
Among those that signed onto the amicus briefs were 212 members of Congress, Electronic Arts (creator of the popular Madden NFL series), Senator Mark Warner (D-VA), Microsoft and Starbucks, and Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA).
IAVA wasn't the only veteran group to sign on to the repealing DOMA. Former congressman and retired Navy Admiral Joe Sestak authored this op-ed in philly.com stating his support for DOMA repeal. Several retired military leaders, service members and families, and Outserve-SLDN also filed amicus briefs in support of repealing DOMA.
After oral arguments, Ms. Windsor made this statement on the steps of the Supreme Court:
"I am today an out lesbian... who just sued the United States of America."
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision ruled that DOMA was unconstitutional because it violated the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. Justice Kennedy authored the majority opinion with the four liberal-leaning justices joining. Justice Scalia authored a dissenting opinion with Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Alito and Thomas joining.I read Kennedy's opinion. Here are the portions that stood out the most to me.
The Act’s demonstrated purpose is to ensure that if any State decides to recognize same-sex marriages, those unions will be treated as second-class marriages for purposes of federal law. This raises a most serious question under the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment.
DOMA’s operation in practice confirms this purpose. When New York adopted a law to permit same-sex marriage, it sought to eliminate inequality; but DOMA frustrates that objective through a system-wide enactment with no identified connection to any particular area of federal law. DOMA writes inequality into the entire United States Code. The particular case at hand concerns the estate tax, but DOMA is more than a simple determination of what should or should not be allowed as an estate tax refund. Among the over 1,000 statutes and numerous federal regulations that DOMA controls are laws pertaining to Social Security, housing, taxes, criminal sanctions, copyright, and veterans’ benefits.
DOMA’s principal effect is to identify a subset of state sanctioned marriages and make them unequal. The principal purpose is to impose inequality, not for other reasons like governmental efficiency. Responsibilities, as well as rights, enhance the dignity and integrity of the person. And DOMA contrives to deprive some couples married under the laws of their State, but not other couples, of both rights and responsibilities. By creating two contradictory marriage regimes within the same State, DOMA forces same-sex couples to live as married for the purpose of state law but unmarried for the purpose of federal law, thus diminishing the stability and predictability of basic personal relations the State has found it proper to acknowledge and protect. By this dynamic DOMA undermines both the public and private significance of state sanctioned same-sex marriages; for it tells those couples, and all the world, that their otherwise valid marriages are unworthy of federal recognition. This places same-sex couples in an unstable position of being in a second-tier marriage. The differentiation demeans the couple, whose moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects, see Lawrence, 539 U. S. 558, and whose relationship the State has sought to dignify. And it humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives.
From there it goes into detail about how DOMA impacts couples.
And here is where Justice Kennedy lowers the boom!
The class to which DOMA directs its restrictions and restraints are those persons who are joined in same-sex marriages made lawful by the State. DOMA singles out a class of persons deemed by a State entitled to recognition and protection to enhance their own liberty. It imposes a disability on the class by refusing to acknowledge a status the State finds to be dignified and proper. DOMA instructs all federal officials, and indeed all persons with whom same-sex couples interact, including their own children, that their marriage is less worthy than the marriages of others. The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity. By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment. This opinion and its holding are confined to those lawful marriages.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
Section III of DOMA was ruled unconstitutional. In effect DOMA is dead. It is still there, but it's dead weight. And we don't dump anything within 50 miles from shore.
All and all this case (along with the Prop 8 case, which I will have up shortly) was a big (bleeping) deal. This country has come a long way in LGBT Rights.
But, as stated earlier, a new journey begins.
And I welcome it.
Tuesday, 25 June 2013
Let's go back to five years ago.
At this time I was approaching my discharge date from active duty as a member of the United States Navy. It was a difficult decision to make, but I decided that I wanted to do something different with my life. I had my education benefits through the GI Bill and Hazelwood exemption so I wanted to go to school.
I also knew that I was getting out as the Presidential election was ramping up. I knew this was going to be a big deal because whoever was elected was going to be the next President of the United States because the then-incumbent President, George W. Bush, was term limited.
There was a lot of attention with the upcoming presidential election. President Bush's popularity dropped like a rock during his second term due to his proposals for immigration reform was hijacked by the far-right members of his party, the backlash by seniors in his efforts to privatize Social Security, the discovery of warrantless wiretaps by his NSA, support for the Iraq War was dwindling, and the big one that turned off voters: the mishandling of the recovery efforts from Hurricane Katrina.
In November 2006, voters gave the Democrats control of both chambers of Congress for the first time in 12 years. I knew this was a big deal because of what happened in the Virginia race for US Senate. Though I admit I was not paying attention to politics as much as I do now because at the time I was paying attention to this undrafted quarterback for the Dallas Cowboys who was elevated to starter during the midpoint of the season and took the team to its second playoff appearance since the departure of The Triplets after the 2002 season.
So... 2008... I am counting down to the days to my freedom date discharge date from active duty and I become a civilian.
In late April/early May 2008, I come across this documentary that aired on the local PBS station in Hampton Roads, VA. It was titled Carrierand followed the USS Nimitz (CVN-68) on their 2005 deployment to the Persian Gulf. I had those similar experiences shown in the documentary as a member of the Carl Vinson's deployment to the Persian Gulf as part of her World Cruise in 2005.
Most of the series concentrated on what happens among the air wing and the pilots and the action that happens on the flight deck. Not surprising; that's how life is on a carrier. Everyone pays attention to what is going on the flight deck and topside; there is a lot of action that goes on below decks, especially down in the engine room and power plant spaces.
The second part of the series was titled "Super Secrets" where they took a look at what happens in other parts of the ship. The documentary (VERY) briefly showed what I did in the Navy as a nuclear propulsion plant operator (12:06-15:40). I suspect the reasons why they couldn't go down to the propulsion plant spaces because, first, it's confidential material. Second, the film crew would have needed radiation monitoring devices, a thermoluminescent dosimeter (TLD, there was ANOTHER name for it...). They aren't that big. When I was in it was as big as a thumb and you clipped on your belt (in the video clip you can see the Reactor Officer wearing one on the left side of his coverall uniform). Before I got out, I heard they were replacing it with something that looked like a pager. And third.... it gets hot down there. The best way I can describe the heat down in the propulsion plant is this: July-August time frame in Texas when you first get into your car before starting it. And that is in the ventilation.
They interviewed some sailors about life aboard a carrier. Everything they mentioned... you develop some form of interpersonal relationship with the people you serve with.
They had to hide their faces because prior to the official repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" in September 2011 because those sailors would face discharge from the armed forces for openly disclosing their sexual orientation.
In that montage leading up to those interviews... Yes, I did utter the phrase: "Man, this is so goddamned gay."I can provide the excuse that I was young (less than 25) and didn't know any better, but it doesn't change the fact that it was the wrong thing to say back them. I apologize for it. Let my actions speak for itself when it comes to correcting that wrong.
I was touched by their interviews. Some of them wore the same uniform that I did underway (most of the times coveralls, but sometimes utilities). Maybe there was a M Division Nuke in that interview.
Fast forward from there to a couple of months later, it is now late July 2008. I am packing my things into my car to head back to Texas to start a new chapter in my life. I come across this episode of The Daily Show during its daytime replay while I am moving stuff into my car. Here is Jon Stewart's take on the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" hearings in the US House and the ridiculousness of the opposition.
I found some more videos to watch of that hearing. The person who was asking the questions and tearing Elaine Donnely a new one was Pennsylvania Congressman Patrick Murphy. He was the first Iraq Veteran elected to Congress in 2007 and he did not hold back.
Then there was there were these two testimonies:
Again, I was touched by the fact that these two individuals were brave enough to share their stories. Again, they wore the uniform a lot longer than I did. I felt I had a duty to do what I could to repeal this policy.
Most importantly, I owed it to my family members who are gay. In a letterI authored to the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Dallas Morning News, and Who's Playing blog, I mentioned that I have one on my father's side and one on my mother's side. They stood by me while I was in the military. Now it was my turn to pay it back.
Fast forward once again to Election Night 2008: Obama had won the election by a convincing electoral margin. When I got home from a watch party, I checked the polling results from the Proposition 8 vote in California. I saw that Prop 8 passed by a slim margin. Honestly, I was shocked. If you told me in 2008 to pick five states that would affirm same-sex marriages, California would occupy slots 1-4. I know a lot of people were mad and screaming, but my reaction was.... "You know, I DID not see that coming."
Later I found out the reason why it passed was because of a lot of backing by the Mormon church in the documentary 8: The Mormon Proposition.
Since then I have seen this country progress very rapidly on LGBT Issues. Prop 8 faced a legal challenge and began its process through the courts. The two attorneys arguing for the petitioners were on the opposite sides of Bush v. Gore (2000). This country repealed "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." I remember watching the repeal ceremony on televisionfeeling a sense of accomplishment. I also knew there were many other fights to take on and it was going to be a lot more difficult given what was going to be the makeup of the next Congress. Then came Election Night 2012 when there were ballot measures in Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, and Washington on the topic of same-sex marriage. Maine, Maryland, and Washington became the first states to affirm same-sex marriage at the ballot which broke a 0-31 streak in the states. Minnesota rejected a measure that would super-secret ban same-sex marriage in their state. Six months later, Minnesota became the most recent state to legalize marriage equality.
When I heard that the Supreme Court was going to take on Prop 8, I knew this was going to be a good chance that MAYBE we can end this debate and proceed towards other pressing matters. There was also the Defense Of Marriage Act (DOMA) case which has a good shot at the federal government recognizing same-sex marriage when it comes to purposes of government employee benefits.
Based on what I have been reading and listening to the oral arguments, we're probably heading towards a split decision meaning the Court will rule in favor of overturning DOMA, but probably issue a narrow ruling in Prop 8 that is limited to California. Lambda Legal has this infographic showing the possible outcomes of the two cases. I'd like to believe that this court is aware of public opinion on this issue. More than 55% of Americans believe that it should be legal for gay and lesbian couples to get married. 54 Senators (a super majority of the Senate Democrats and 3 Republicans) have expressed support for equal marriage.
Honestly I don't know how this court will rule on the people that I care about and the countless number of friends I have made in this process. As former NFL head coach Jim Mora once said: "You think you know, but you don't know."
But I think retired Navy Commander and "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" advocate Zoe Dunning put it best in her column for the San Francisco Bay Times: "Maybe good, maybe bad."
All I know is this: This part of the journey will conclude.
Whatever happens with the Supreme Court tomorrow, we will begin a new journey.
I am looking forward to it.
Monday, 17 June 2013
Earlier this month while First Lady Michelle Obama was speaking at a private residence in Washington, DC a person interrupted her remarks. The First Lady stepped down from the lectern to confront the individual. The person who interrupted the speech was identified as Ellen Sturtz, a woman associated with the LGBT activist group GetEQUAL.
I've read a lot of different opinions on this subject. I've seen the Facebook posts of some of the people associated with GetEQUAL praising Ms. Sturtz for her actions and other posts questioning why would someone would go after the First Lady when she has no role in the governing process. This sparked some good lengthy Facebook discussions.
My thoughts on this?
As Jonathan Capehart wrote in his opnion piece for The Washington Post, they are both right. Ms. Sturtz also authored this opinion piece for the same newspaper defending her actions. It is understandable why she did what she did:
As a gray-haired, 56-year-old lesbian, I don’t have time to wait another generation for equality — it’s been almost 40 years since similar legislation to ENDA (Employee Non Discrimination Act) was first introduced in Congress. And being polite hasn’t gotten us any closer to it becoming a reality.
LZ Granderson, one of the few openly gay sports writers and regular contributor to ESPN and CNN, had this to say in a piece:
Heckling the first lady wasn't fair because she isn't responsible for policy. But the incident sent a message to those who are responsible: We are people, not pawns.
Again, these people bring up good points by the parties involved. Both Ms. Strutz and Mr. Granderson highlight that at times the LGBT community is thrown under the metaphorical bus during the negotiating process in crafting legislation.
While the incident did shed light on the rarely discussed topic of job discrimination, it appears that it has backfired among liberal leaning persons and especially with the Black community.
Right now relations between the LGBT and Black communities are soured over of the fallout coming from the stalled Marriage Equality bill in the Illinois State House. Democrats controlled 60% of the 118-seat chamber but the bill was not put to a vote. The bill passed the Senate and Governor Pat Quinn stated he would sign the bill once it reached his desk. It appeared that Illinois was on the cusp of becoming the 13th State to embrace marriage equality and the third in the Midwest, but time ran out on the session. The bill has been given an extension to 31 August, but it is likely that again time will run out and the vote could come in the fall.
One of the stories that surfaced on why the marriage equality bill was scuttled is because of the false narrative over that it was the Black community who did not support this measure. Actually.... among the 20 Black members in the Illinois State House, 11 were prepared to vote yes with the undecided's and no's split 5-4. That's more than half and you don't have to be a math major to figure that out. The NBC station in Chicago pointed it out in this article and that less than a third of the state house's White members supported the measure.
And if you REALLY want to see someone lay down some knowledge, read this from my fellow pigskin prognosticator one Ms. Monica Roberts of Houston, TX.
One more thing, a poll conducted by NBC-Wall Street Journal from March 2013 shows that Black voters support gay marriage 51-37. The same question was asked in 2009 and it was a third giving support. This further shatters the myth that Blacks are not in favor of equal marriage rights.
The incident between the First Lady and Ms. Sturtz did not improve the rocky relationship between the two communities. University of Pennsylvania professor Anthea Butler made this observation where she criticizes GetEQUAL's tactics.
The logic employed by GetEQUAL to think that their wish to see ENDA enacted by forcing the issue with this type of protest backfired. Now, not only are they being criticized by other LGBT groups, they have the wrath of African-Americans who are weary and disgusted with the disrespect shown to the president and the first lady. Most importantly, they have found out that Michelle Obama is a real woman, with real feelings. Perhaps in all of their advocating, they have forgotten that point.
Now I get this statement made by some of the GetEQUAL members that we should hold our elected officials accountable. There is a problem with going after the First Lady: she is not an elected official. Does she advocate for some of spouse's positions? Did she give a keynote at the 2012 DNC? Yes, but she isn't the first person in the role of First Lady to do these things and she won't be the last.
Again, to quote Professor Butler, "Challenge the president, not his wife."
The reason why GetEQUAL is challenging this president is over the ENDA Executive Order that President Obama has yet to sign. While on the campaign trail during his first presidential run five years ago, Obama promised to sign such a document if elected when he was asked by the Houston GLBT Political Caucus back in February 2008.
The critiques of the ENDA Executive Order is that it would protect 16.5 million workers, mostly those who have contracts with the government. Many high profile companies have some form of non-discrimination policies on their books, but more can be done.
An ENDA Executive Order is a temporary solution as it protects only a portion of the workforce. The solution would be to craft legislation that protects the ENTIRE workforce.... ahem, pass ENDA in Congress.
Now in the Obama administration's defense when it comes to LGBT Issues, they have demonstrated an outstanding record compared to the previous presidential administrations in my lifetime (Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and W. Bush) COMBINED.
This president has done more for the civil rights of the people that I hold near and dear to my heart. Can more be done? Yes, always.
However.... (comma)....
Time, resources, and energy would be better spent going after those who are fiercely anti-LGBT than those who are already supportive. I can think of 235 people in the United States House of Representatives and 45 people in the United States Senate who will not co-sponsor pro-LGBT legislation.
In addition, if we want nice things we need to give this President a Congress that will work with him; not a House that constantly votes to defund ObamaCare at every whim or a Senate that has a minority political party FILIBUSTER just to start debate on legislation.
In other words: vote the obstructionist Republicans out in 2014 so that we can return the Speaker's Gabble to Nancy Pelosi and increase our majority in the US Senate to 60 seats so that the GOP can no longer roadblock the things we need to function as a country.
Recently GetEQUAL had 8 of their members arrested at Speaker John Boehner's DC office to bring attention to ENDA legislation in Congress. It is a nice start, but it might be a method to deflect attention away from the fallout over the First Lady being heckled by one of their activists.
Right now everyone I know in the LGBT community and their allies are awaiting the rulings from the Supreme Court regarding the cases Hollingsworth v. Perry (Prop 8) and Windsor v. United States (DOMA, Defense of Marriage Act). The court could release the opinions later this morning or this coming Thursday or the last Monday of the month. I'm checking SCOTUSBlog every day to see what is going on. Lambda Legal has this infographicon their website listing the probable outcomes of the two cases.
While Minnesota, Delaware, and Rhode Island passed legislation embracing marriage equality, Nevada is on the path to put marriage equality on the ballot as soon as 2016, and Colorado passed a civil unions bill, for the most part various pro-LGBT legislation is stalled due to awaiting the outcomes of these decisions. The paths for Prop 8 victory have various paths. I would prefer if the court issued a wide ruling similar to what they did back in Loving v. Virginia (1967), but based on what I have been reading the court is probably going to go with a narrow ruling that affects California.
Then again.... the ObamaCare ruling last summer produced a 5-4 ruling with the majority opinion authored by Chief Justice Roberts. Sorting by ideology, Roberts is to the right of traditional swing vote Justice Kennedy. A lot of people on my side of the aisle were anticipating a 5-4 ruling OVERTURNING ObamaCare. The 5-4 ruling supporting AND Chief Justice Roberts authoring the majority opinion was a shocker. So, we don't know how these LGBT cases are going to be decided.
The best way I can sum up on how the Supreme Court will rule on these cases is from former NFL head coach Jim Mora. This is from his stint while he was with the Saints:
You think you know, but you don't know and you never will.
We're in a holding pattern right now because of the uncertainty surrounding how and when the court will decide these cases. Also, there are other cases that the Supreme Court is releasing this month most notably one concerning the role of Affirmative Action in college admissions and Voting Rights Act. Have you ever read a Supreme Court opinion? It puts some of my posts to shame. The court has to explain in great detail why they made the decision that they did and it is based on things like established precedents, other court cases, legislation, and most importantly, the US Constitution. That takes A LOT of research and writing.... a whole lot of writing. The court heard the DOMA and Prop 8 cases back in March 2013. That was two more cases added to the several other ones heard for this term starting in October 2012.
So, for now it has been the "Waiting Game." And understandable, folks like Ms. Sturtz can't wait.
The purpose of my post was to highlight the issues surrounding the First Lady being heckled by Ms. Sturtz. It is not as black-and-white as those who argue their sides. There are many complex issues surrounding this topic because people are inherently complex beings. I hope that both sides can see what the other side is arguing and look at some common ground to work towards instead.
Because maybe... both sides are right.
Sunday, 2 June 2013
So the misnamed National Organization for Marriage (NOM) is manufacturing " outrage" over this new cartoon set to air on the cable channel The Hub. The cartoon is called SheZow with the premise of a 12 year boy who finds a magic ring that transforms him into a superhero who is a girl.
I had to check my TV listings. Yup... apparently, I get that channel.
Here are the cartoons I used to watch as a kid: the Looney Tunes and Merry Melodies shorts, Tom and Jerry, the Disney cartoon shorts, Batman The Animated Series, and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.
I also watched The Simpsons back when it was controversial and finally put the struggling little Fox network on the map.FORMER President George H.W. Bush once said, "We're going to keep trying to strengthen the American family. To make them more like the Waltons and less like the Simpsons."
Today, "The Simpsons" are tame in comparison to the other animated programs that air on television (Archer, South Park, Cartoon Network's [adult swim]).
Ask yourself this: would you let your kids watch any animated program saying "Executive Producer: Seth MacFarlane"?
If you answer yes, you are a bad parent.
And that is coming from someone who doesn't have kids.
Here are my television habits: sports, news, primetime animated programs, documentaries, and whatever is in my Netflix queue. I could care less what is on The Hub.
However, let me wield my opinion on NOM going after a children's cartoon.
First, who remembers the outrage that Jerry Falwell expressed over the Teletubbies? I do. Dear sweet baby Jesus...
I don't think their target audience (VERY small children) are aware of gender and sexuality issues that are prevalent in our society. And again.... he was getting upset over a CHILDREN'S PROGRAM!
There are two cartoons from my childhood that I'd like to discuss. Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles was about a bunch of mutated turtles that practiced martial arts in order to fight crime, lived in a sewer with their sensei who was a rat, and eat pizza. Take a guess which of those things I do.
How many times have we seen Bugs Bunny, that wascally wabbit, dress in drag in order to thwart his foe?
NOM, here is some friendly advice. I normally don't dispense advice to you, but in your case you need it.
There is this magical device that allows you to control what images you see on the television.
Try using it sometime.
Saturday, 1 June 2013
Wednesday, 3 April 2013
45 years ago this evening Dr. King was in Memphis, TN to stand in solidarity with striking sanitation workers. It was the last public speech he gave.
The next day he was murdered by an assassin's bullet at his hotel.
Enclosed here is the text of the speech.
Instead of the text of the speech, I will offer this commentary. With the recent rapid and sometimes exponential movement in LGBT Rights in the last 20 years, Rachel Maddow offered this observation on her program last week:
We're still seeing Dr. King's light to this day. And the many Civil Rights leaders and other history makers that stood for change. Their light still shines on us despite their physical presence is no longer with us. I can see them all gathering in some meeting place (a restaurant, a bar, someone's living room, campfire, car on a long road trip, think tank) in Heaven/The Great Beyond/some other plane of existence and talking about what is going on down here.
It is important to look back on the sacrifices and efforts that all kinds of people made to get us to where we are today and learn from the lessons of the past in order to move forward to creating "that more perfect Union" and ensuring that we live up to the ideas we proclaim so loudly in our founding documents.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
